Smith v. State, No. 93-263
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming |
| Writing for the Court | Before GOLDEN, C.J., THOMAS, MACY and TAYLOR, JJ., and CARDINE; MACY |
| Citation | 880 P.2d 573 |
| Decision Date | 25 August 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. 93-263 |
| Parties | Rachel SMITH, Appellant (Defendant), v. The STATE of Wyoming, Appellee (Plaintiff). |
Page 573
v.
The STATE of Wyoming, Appellee (Plaintiff).
Leonard D. Munker, State Public Defender, Gerald M. Gallivan, Defender Aid Program, and Sherri L. Sweers, Student Intern for the Defender Aid Program, for appellant.
Joseph B. Meyer, Atty. Gen., Sylvia Lee Hackl, Deputy Atty. Gen., D. Michael Pauling, Sr. Asst. Atty. Gen., Theodore E. Lauer, Director of the Prosecution Assistance Program, and Mark D. Stoup and Sheryl Lansing, Student Interns for the Prosecution Assistance Program, for appellee.
Before GOLDEN, C.J., THOMAS, MACY and TAYLOR, JJ., and CARDINE, J. (Retired).
MACY, Justice.
Appellant Rachel Smith appeals from the judgment and sentence which the district court entered after Appellant had been convicted of being an accessory before the fact to aggravated robbery.
We affirm.
Appellant presents the following issue on appeal:
Whether the prosecutor's misstatement of the law in closing argument constituted prosecutorial misconduct which was so prejudicial it denied the defendant her right to a fair trial.
In December 1992, two teenage boys were traveling on Interstate 90 between Buffalo, Wyoming, and Sheridan, Wyoming. Somewhere near the boundary between Johnson County and Sheridan County, a tire on the boys' car went flat. They parked the car at the side of the road in order to change the flat tire.
A few minutes later, a pickup which was occupied by Appellant and her companion pulled up behind them. The companion asked the boys whether they needed help. The boys stated that they did not have a jack or a lug wrench. The companion indicated that she had a jack but that a part which was necessary for the operation of the jack was missing. She asked one of the boys to look in the trunk of his car for a tool which might work to operate the jack. As the boy was reaching into the trunk, he felt a tap on his head. He turned around and found that the companion was pointing a gun at him. She demanded that the boy give all his money to her. When the boy opened his wallet to get his money, Appellant told her companion to take the entire wallet, and she did.
Page 574
The women left the scene in the pickup. The boys drove the car to Sheridan without changing the flat tire, and they reported the incident to two police officers who were at a restaurant in Sheridan. While the boys were speaking with the officers, Appellant entered the restaurant. The boys identified Appellant to the officers.
A few days later, one of the boys accompanied a deputy sheriff to the location where the crime had occurred. Appellant was eventually arrested and charged in Sheridan County with one count of being an accessory before the fact to aggravated robbery in violation of WYO.STAT. §§ 6-1-201(a) and 6-2-401(a) and (c)(ii) (1988). 1 After a two-day trial, the jury returned a guilty verdict. The district court sentenced Appellant to serve a term of not less than six years nor more than eight years in the Wyoming Women's Center. This appeal followed.
In her appeal, Appellant argues that the prosecutor "committed prosecutorial misconduct by misstating the law" in his closing argument. She contends that the prosecutor misled the jury to believe that the venue element was irrelevant in determining whether Appellant was guilty of being an accessory before the fact to aggravated robbery.
Appellant did not object at trial to the prosecutor's closing argument. "The general rule in Wyoming is that a failure to interject a timely objection to an allegedly...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith v. State, No. 94-245
...and she and Tammy Higgins then robbed the two teenage boys at gunpoint. See Higgins v. State, 889 P.2d 964 (Wyo.1995), and Smith v. State, 880 P.2d 573 (Wyo.1994). Pursuant to a subpoena issued by the district court, Minick returned to Sheridan on July 29, 1993 and testified against Rachel ......
-
Vigil v. State, No. 95-61
...We never got a chance to find out about Mr. Burr, what he knows. The response by the State in rebuttal was appropriate. Smith v. State, 880 P.2d 573, 574-75 (Wyo.1994). It is not improper for the prosecutor to comment on the failure of the defendant to produce the witness. King v. State, 78......
-
Harper v. State, No. 97-47
...even when objection is not taken by the opposing attorney. We have been consistent in our application of this concept. Smith v. State, 880 P.2d 573, 574 (Wyo.1994); Taul v. State, 862 P.2d 649, 659 (Wyo.1993); Miller v. State, 830 P.2d 419, 427 (Wyo.1992). When no objection has been made to......
-
Vargas-Rocha v. State, VARGAS-ROCHA
...error standard of review in this case because we do not discern any error which occurred in the proceedings below. See Smith v. State, 880 P.2d 573, 574 Motion to Suppress Appellant contends that the traffic stop was illegal and violated his state and federal constitutional rights and that ......
-
Smith v. State, No. 94-245
...and she and Tammy Higgins then robbed the two teenage boys at gunpoint. See Higgins v. State, 889 P.2d 964 (Wyo.1995), and Smith v. State, 880 P.2d 573 (Wyo.1994). Pursuant to a subpoena issued by the district court, Minick returned to Sheridan on July 29, 1993 and testified against Rachel ......
-
Vigil v. State, No. 95-61
...We never got a chance to find out about Mr. Burr, what he knows. The response by the State in rebuttal was appropriate. Smith v. State, 880 P.2d 573, 574-75 (Wyo.1994). It is not improper for the prosecutor to comment on the failure of the defendant to produce the witness. King v. State, 78......
-
Harper v. State, No. 97-47
...even when objection is not taken by the opposing attorney. We have been consistent in our application of this concept. Smith v. State, 880 P.2d 573, 574 (Wyo.1994); Taul v. State, 862 P.2d 649, 659 (Wyo.1993); Miller v. State, 830 P.2d 419, 427 (Wyo.1992). When no objection has been made to......
-
Vargas-Rocha v. State, VARGAS-ROCHA
...error standard of review in this case because we do not discern any error which occurred in the proceedings below. See Smith v. State, 880 P.2d 573, 574 Motion to Suppress Appellant contends that the traffic stop was illegal and violated his state and federal constitutional rights and that ......